Insolvency – Petition. The applicant company's application for a bankruptcy petition succeeded. The Chancery Division dismissed the opposing creditor's application for a second adjournment to consider an IVA. The court made an order on the petition.
Housing – Local authority houses. There was no evidence whatsoever that the defendant local authority had pre-determined that it would not offer the claimant housing by reason of her race or religion, and the decision letter clearly set out all the evidence presented to it, and set out clearly and rationally the basis for the decision in accordance with the allocation scheme. Accordingly, the Administrative Court held that there was no justifiable complaint about the decision-making process and the claimant's judicial review failed.
Police – Pension. The claimants' appeal to the defendant Crown Court, pursuant to reg H5(1) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, SI 1987/257, contending that the Regulations which disentitled the second claimant to a widow's pension because the first claimant had married her after he had retired should be disapplied, should not have been brought before the Crown Court. Accordingly, the Divisional Court transferred it to a single judge of the Queen's Bench Division, to be treated as if it was a claim commenced under CPR Pt 8.
Conflict of Laws – Service outside jurisdiction. The claimant had been entitled to serve a claim form on the defendant out of the jurisdiction on the basis that England was the defendant's last known domicile. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled, among other things, concerning a dispute over assets between the unmarried parties, which arose following the breakdown of their relationship. The court held that it was not appropriate to extend Re Egerton's Will Trusts 2 All ER 817 (which held that there was a starting presumption that the law of the husband's domicile applied to govern the mutual property rights of the spouses) to non-matrimonial relationships.
European Union – Corporation tax. For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning in Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes): C-446/03 STC 237, the fact that the subsidiary's member state of establishment did not allow the losses of one company to be transferred, in the event of a merger, to another company liable for corporation tax, whereas such a transfer was provided for by the member state in which the parent company was established in the event of a merger between resident companies, was not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrated that it was impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they were fiscally taken into account by a third party for future tax periods. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the possibility of the taxpayer company deducting from its corporation tax the losses of a sub-subsidiary established in another member state.
European Union – Environment. Articles 13(1) and 23(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/50 should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, had been exceeded, it was sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value be measured at a single sampling point. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings regarding the obligation to develop an air quality plan for the Brussels zone (Belgium) and to install the sampling points legally required to monitor air quality.
Income tax – Corporation tax. The concept of final losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning set out in Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes): C-446/03  STC 237 (M&S), did not apply to a sub-subsidiary unless all the intermediate companies between the parent company applying for group relief and the sub-subsidiary sustaining losses that could be regarded as final were not established in the same member state. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the possibility of the respondent taxpayer company of deducting from its corporation tax the losses of a sub-subsidiary established in another member state.
Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The appellants' appeal in a property dispute was dismissed, save that the order of the judge at first instance would be varied to include a declaration as to the respondent (D) being a constructive trustee of the 3/8 share in the property. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the fact that D had admitted to forging a will of the deceased did not lead to the conclusion that the court should deny to her a declaration that she had the benefit of the express declaration of trust contained in the purchase agreement of the property.
Landlord and tenant – Lease. A local authority freeholder with which a rowing club had purportedly entered a lease agreement had an unanswerable case to be joined as a defendant. The Chancery Division further granted the claimant members of the rowing club an order appointing them as trustees of the lease as it had been the intention of all the parties that the club had been a tenant, although it had not legally been entitled to be such.
European Union – Environment. Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 should be interpreted as meaning that shipments of animal by-products falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, were excluded from the scope of Regulation 1013/2006, unless Regulation 1069/2009 expressly provided for the application of Regulation 1013/2006. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the legality of a transfer of animal by-products from the Netherlands to Germany.
Pensions – Deficits. The Pensions Regulator had had power to issue a Financial Support Directive (FSD) on the appellant companies requiring them to provide financial support for a group pension scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had not erred in finding that the Pensions Act 2004 had had retrospective effect and that the Regulator had acted reasonably in issuing the FSD.
Company – Insolvency. A director was only liable if he had known or ought reasonably to have known that the relevant distribution was a misapplication. In so clarifying, the Chancery Division went on to make a number of findings in relation to the transactions sanctioned by directors of a company that subsequently became insolvent. The liquidators of the company had failed to show that the transactions had been entered into in breach of fiduciary duties or in order to defraud creditors.
Criminal law – Time. The judge had been correct to apply the time limit for laying an information under s 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to offences under the Welfare of Farm Animals (England) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/2078, rather than the longer time limit under s 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the judge's ruling that he did not have jurisdiction to try six charges against the respondents because the information was laid outside the six-month time limit.
Bankruptcy – Petition. It had been necessary for the judge to examine the views of the interests of creditors as a class with some care, in particular, given that the majority by value of 87% of the outstanding debts had opposed the making of the bankruptcy order. Accordingly, the Chancery Division allowed the appellant's appeal against the bankruptcy order.
Guarantee – Enforcement. The claimant company succeeded in its claim for unpaid sums under an agreement. The Commercial Court held that the claimant had established its entitlement to the amount of US$2,300,170 for unpaid invoices. However, the claimant was not entitled to claim procurement fees, as no sufficient demand had been made for them.
Town and country planning – Development consent. In an application by the claimant adjacent land owner against planning permission granted by the council to itself over green belt land, the Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, held that the local planning authority of the council acted unlawfully in failing to take into account its previous decision. It was incumbent on the council to address the change in position that the development could have an adverse impact on green belt openness.
Summary judgment – Strike out. The claimant, who alleged that a member of the British army (TS) had raped and sexually assaulted her while she had been serving in the Royal Navy in Gibraltar, succeeded on her appeal against a master's decision: (i) granting the defendant Ministry of Defence (MOD) summary judgment on the claimant's personal injury claim, on the basis that she had no real prospect of successfully establishing that the MOD was vicariously liable to her for TS's offences; and (ii) striking out part of her amended particulars of claim, on the basis that they did not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing a claim of misfeasance in public office. The Queen's Bench Division held that, in circumstances where the MOD had accepted that the relationship between it and TS was capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, the master had erred in failing to give appropriate weight to the combination of all the matters the claimant had relied on, which, in the court's judgment, did give rise to a real prospect of establishing vicarious liability. Further, the court ruled that the master had erred in striking out part of the claimant's amended particulars of claim where there had been no argument before him about whether, in committing the alleged offences, TS had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office.
European Union – Environment. Article 3(u) of Directive (EC) 2003/87, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that an installation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which produced, within the framework of its activity of 'combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 [megawatts (MW)]', referred to in Annex I to that directive, electricity intended essentially to be used for its own needs, had be regarded as an 'electricity generator', within the meaning of that provision. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the application by the applicant company for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to a natural gas processing installation.
European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had correctly concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign 'AC MILAN' for which the intervener company, Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan), had obtained international registration and the earlier EU marks 'AC', 'AC HOTELS MARRIOTT' and 'AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT' which had been registered by the applicant, Marriott Worldwide Corp. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's application for annulment of the Board's decision.
European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had correctly decided that the applicant company (adidas AG) had failed to establish that the figurative mark that it had successfully registered consisting of three parallel equidistant stripes of identical width (applied on a product in any direction) had acquired distinctive character through use throughout the EU. It followed that the Board had been right to decide that the contested mark had been registered in breach of art 7(1)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and that it should therefore be declared invalid. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by adidas AG for annulment of the Board's decision.
European Union – Trade marks. The Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office had correctly decided that the three-dimensional sign in the shape of a faucet for which registration as an EU trade mark was sought by the applicant company (Brita GmbH) was devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of art 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended, in respect of all the relevant goods and services referred to by the examiner. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union dismissed Brita's action for annulment of the Board's decision.